Posted
by
samzenpuson Wednesday September 07, 2011 @08:03PM
from the litigate-or-die dept.

AlienIntelligence writes "Apparently to stay viable in the IP wars, HTC secured some patents from Google (who purchased them originally from Palm Inc., Motorola Inc. and Openwave Systems Inc.) on the 1st of September. The patents were used to fire a new salvo of shots across Apple's bow today, September 7th. HTC filed infringement claims against Apple in federal court in Delaware, suing based on four of those patents that originally were issued to Motorola. Additional complaints were filed with the U.S. ITC based on the other patents."

Sure, that would be more accurate, but make no mistake, these patents are Google's in every sense but the legal one. Even if Google doesn't own them on paper any longer, Google is still using them to stage a proxy battle against Apple.

Sure, that would be more accurate, but make no mistake, these patents are Google's in every sense but the legal one.

There is no other sense other than the legal one.

Even if Google doesn't own them on paper any longer, Google is still using them to stage a proxy battle against Apple.

Not really. Apple is already in a war against the Android, which is owned by the Open Handset Alliance, of which both Google and HTC are members. Google isn't "staging" it, and its not a battle between Google and Apple, its a battle between Apple -- which wants to dominate the mobile OS market and extract monopoly rents from it -- and everyone in the Android ecosystem, who have a shared interest in commoditizing mobile OS's so as to preserve their ability to derive revenue from lines of business which would be marginalized if anyone monopolized the mobile OS market.

Lots of people want to make this a simple Apple vs. Google story, but Apple's relation to iOS and the various i-devices isn't parallel to Google's relationship to Android (for which Google is the primary developer, but not the owner) and is even less parallel to Google's relationship to Android devices. HTC is more of a direct competitor with Apple in the mobile market than Google is.

Either way in marketing terms Apple, the marketing engine is making itself look ugly, cheap and tacky. This kind of legal battle always cheapens a company image and for Apple that is a disaster and the longer it goes on the worse it is. The other companies aren't affected by it is much because of course they market themselves in a different fashion and not as a fashion concious, technology unconscious, digital accessory range.

So Apple is now looking to face the counter threat to what it was doing. Apple

its a battle between Apple -- which wants to dominate the mobile OS market and extract monopoly rents from it -- and everyone in the Android ecosystem, who want to do the exact same thing.

Fixed that for you. I'm sure the members of the Open Handset Alliance would be just thrilled if their 'ability to derive lines of revenue' was unimpeded by minor considerations such as competitors. And naturally they wouldn't take advantage of that at all with arbitrary price rises. No sir.

I'm not saying which side is right or which is wrong. I just don't believe that either have significantly different motives.

Not really... the members Open Handset Alliance are resigned to the fact that they will not become monopolies - so long as the Open Handset Alliance (or rather, so long as an open mobile platform) exists, the members will always have competition from each other. The existence of another vendor using another OS (i.e. Apple, Microsoft, etc.) makes very little difference to them in this case so long as they are playing by similar rules because they are just another competitor in an arena that is already full

-Every- tech company believes they are defending against the evil competition. Microsoft will say they only have software patents to protect against patent trolls and Google/Apple. Google will say they only have software patents to protect against patent trolls and Apple/Microsoft. Apple will say they only have software patents to protect against patent trolls and Google/Microsoft. No company believes they are the ones attacking with patents.

The reality is that *every tech company* that has done so, does not include google. Putting google and microsoft in the same category is a known microsoft shilling technique.

In reality, google has yet to ever, offensively go after anyone with patents. Microsoft and apple on the other hand, have even gone as far as trying to do the ITC loophole, and trying to directly restrict competition in other countries. Not the same.

If Google was serious about patent reform, why would they spend $12 billion to acquire Motorola Mobility to get their patents? Why wouldn't Google simply spend a couple more millions on lobbyists to stress the need for patent reform. And yes, Google has never used patents offensively yet, but the very fact that they don't spend more money attacking the root of the problem rather than treating some of the symptoms is quite worrying.

If Google was serious about patent reform, why would they spend $12 billion to acquire Motorola Mobility to get their patents?

Because Google is not a majority of Congress. Being serious about patent reform does not mean being successful at patent reform. If it was as simple as throwing money at Congress, smoking would still be allowed everywhere, Joe Camel would be selling cigarettes to kids, and cigarette packs would warn you that smoking makes you dangerously sexy.

Google has access to tens of millions of viewers. They can change their logo and the talk around the office cooler is about an obscure Polish artist's 208th birthday. Surely Google can do something like that about patent reform.

Let me add a little bit to what's going on here. Florian has spun this as a "this is bad for google". Yes, that retarded florian mueller. From http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-07/htc-sues-apple-alleging-infringement-of-four-u-s-patents.html [bloomberg.com] . Of course they have to use patents in a lawsuit. How else will they defend themselves? Google isn't suing anyone with these patents, but they are handing them out to folks like HTC to defend themselves (and thus android). They aren't going after folks. In fact I w

Most of Google's partners are established players in the mobile marketplace. Apple was a late comer to the market. The iPhone is a great product, but it was not the first smartphone; Apple simply integrated and packaged existing technology better than most of the competitors. What Apple is trying to do, is to eek out some small space of "innovation" in all of the borrowed or cross licensed technology in the iPhone and use it to suppress competition. So far, what they have come up with as innovative, gam

I would like you to list 1 time google sued another company for patent violations, or aided another company in something that isn't a counter suit. So far my searches come back to 1, a patent troll for geolocation that made no product but was trying to sue 397 companies for patent infringement, which still falls into the countersuit category.

The article does not specify either (in one place it HTC obtained and in another place, "bought").
It could be that HTC got an exclusive license on that patent from Google or the right to collect royalty on those patents while the patents are still held by Google. It is not uncommon,for ex:in case of Novell/SCO, Novell held the copyrights but SCO had rights to collect royalty (or so it was alleged).

About a year ago as the patent litigation really started picking up steam, I saw no reason for them to slow down until the situation reaches a critical time in which the courts or the legislative government calls for an end to all of it. It hasn't even gotten close to that critical moment yet, but I believe it will come. Meanwhile, we will have to see some serious consequences to the US economy before that happens... and it will happen.

Meanwhile, Apple should have realized that this would be a likely consequence. It's not like they were suing Franklin or another Apple-clone/compatible maker. They have exceeded themselves in this case and are behaving frivolously and made themselves a big giant target. They will lose and lose badly.

A part of me is hoping that this is a massive corporate conspiracy to drive the absurdity of current patent/IP law to the point where it becomes patently obvious to everyone that the system is fucking broken.

I'm not sure. The courts in the both US and Europe seem to be giving them every break. I'm very surprised how far they've got in blocking the sale of the Samsung tablet when prior art exists which the iPad looks nearly identical to.

That's not how commodity pricing works at all. HTC can't suddenly jack up the price of their Android phones and expect to get it - they'd have their clock cleaned by Motorola and Samsung. Apple has a little more room for price increases, I suppose, but even they would have to swallow most of any huge settlement or loss.

In other words, the phones are already priced for maximum profit - changing the underlying cost doesn't really change the whole supply/demand curve.

Wow - a clueless fan boy. What intellectual property of Apple's did Microsoft steal in the 1980's and 1990's? The GUI? Don't let the facts interfere with your impassioned lovefest for wonderboy Jobs.

Every single "innovation" in the Apple Lisa/Macintosh graphical user interface was pioneered years before at SRI and Xerox PARC. The first computer that brought all of the elements of the GUI together was the Xerox Alto. Alan Kay, Larry Tesler, Dan Ingalls, who designed the Alto, built upon earlier w

In the future, the hardware will be free. The software will be free. You won't be able to use any of it though, because the patent portfolios will not be free, and they will not be cheap. We'll have to purchase separate patent license agreements from each of whatever handful of companies survives this apocalypse.

For a lot of years all the tech companies, but particularly the phone manufacturers, have existed in a state of what they believed was mutually assured destruction. After all, the products did have to be compatible on at least a basic level for there to be a market at all. So almost all patents were either cross-licensed or available under RAND terms.

Apple has since entered the market and really kicked over the wasp's nest. They had no long term investment in past patents and gradual product development. So they came onto the scene with the iPhone 1, licensed all the basic standards and then refused to cross-license with anyone.

Because apparently they believe that the situation is not mutually assured destruction. So the war has gone from a cold one to a hot one.

It's arguable who started the actual legal battles. Nokia and Motorola were dicking around with patents that were supposed to be under RAND terms for standards reasons in order to try and force Apple to cross-license their patents. Apple has been on the warpath about their multi-touch and design IP.

It will be interesting to see if Apple can get out of this without some form of mandatory cross-licensing being imposed. If they can it should be a very interesting shake-up. It would be the first time in the phone industry that a major company would be using their patents to secure limited monopoly of developments instead of simply being a legal bargaining chip.

It's like a third country getting nuclear capabilities to match the US and the USSR back during the cold war.

"Hi guys! I have nukes and ICBMs now! Give me one billion gadzillion dollars! No? What is this MAD thing you guys keep talking about? Ah who cares, I'm going to fire an ICBM at you and see what happens after..."

Apple weren't refusing to cross license, they were simply disagreeing over the value of their patents - that's the reason for the Nokia lawsuit in the first place. They were attempting to cross licence, but neither side could agree on what Apple's patents were worth and it's necessary to know that since part of the RAND requirements for Nokia's GSM patents mean they have to be licensed at the same price to everyone involved. Apple's claim was that Nokia were asking for too much in exchange for the GSM paten

Because apparently they believe that the situation is not mutually assured destruction.

No, I think very little of Apple and its management but even I trust that Apple knows this.

I think Apple has seen the writing on the wall, Android is growing in popularity, Iphone has been stagnant over the last year, despite selling more units their market share has not increased. Historically, Apple has never been able to cope with competition, even when it was only one big competitor (Microsoft). So the patent war is mutally assured destruction because Apple wants to take others down with it. Rather then conceding defeat and saying "we had a good run" they want to ruin everything for everyone. This isn't simply Apple taking it's ball and going home, they want Samsung's bat too.

At best, this is a ruse to keep stock holders from figuring out that Apple has peaked.

And iOS is still ahead of Android in marketshare when you include all iOS devices - yet another vector you refuse to consider but is indicative of anything but Apple being stagnant.

Sorry, the facts say you're wrong [statcounter.com]. StatCounter includes ALL mobile devices, including tablets and iTouch devices - anything that is mobile. Android has passed iOS in marketshare and is second only to Symbian - which hasn't lost any marketshare.

Overall, Android is gaining at the expense of Apple and RIM - both are losing marketshare, everyone else is pretty flat (or tiny changes) except Android - which is skyrocketing. iOS is now in 3rd place, and could very well fall to 4th - especially if Nokia makes a big push in their historically-dominated markets with Windows Phone.

Apple can compete against one or many companies, but that few other single companies are capable of really competing against Apple

Except Samsung. In fact, Samsung has probably already passed Apple in terms of smartphone sales. They were very close back at the end of June, and at the sales growth rate of Samsung and Apple over the April-June 2011 timeframe, Samsung should pass Apple sometime around the first half of September - now. And HTC wasn't too far behind, with its sales growth rate putting it ahead of Apple sometime next year. No surprise that Apple is predominantly attacking Samsung and HTC - the two who have passed, or are threatening to pass, Apple in terms of number of units sold and marketshare.

All they are asking is Samsung to stop making devices that look EXACTLY like the equivalent Apple devices. And they appear to have enough of a case that a few courts agree, which means your assertion has been tested and failed in a court of law.

That's ONE court, that didn't hear Samsung's argument, and already greatly scaled back the scope of its INITIAL injunction. The other EU court - the Netherlands - pretty much slapped down Apple, hard. Samsung will face no real problem from that and will get to cheerfully continue sales in the rest of the EU - outside of Germany (which will probably end up following the lead of the Netherlands).

The Dutch court decided that Samsung didn't infringe on any "look" and that, in fact, the Apple CD was so vague as to be unenforceable. Additionally, the whole "slide to lock" thing was found to have prior art (thus tossing Apple's patent) - and we already have precedent in courts about the LG Prada being prior art for the physical look that Apple is trying to cement.

The other reality is that very soon Windows Mobile 7 is going to start eating up Android marketshare.

EVERY analyst in this field has said that Android will emerge on top, marketshare wise, and that Windows Phone will probably end up in second place, with iOS battling for 3rd with Blackberry. That doesn't sound like Windows Phone 7 (get the name right) will eat up Android so much as it will eat up iOS.

My experience is that most iPhone users are unable to make any distinction between functionality or usability/experience between a top tier Android phone and an iPhone 4. Their only rational for favoring the iPhone is because it's an iPhone. My wife has an iPhone 4 - I have a Samsung Galaxy S. Any time she wants to do something, it ends up being done on my phone. Wireless tethering while we were on vacation - it's dead simple on my Samsong. She couldn't get it to work on her iPhone. The kids want to pl

More like: "Your honor my client hates guns, has publicly spoken out against them and never owned one. When he was repeatedly shot at over the last few months, he finally bought one and started shooting back".

I am not sure I'm in favor of google getting the Motorolla patents - or any patents - but you should at least get your facts straight. Frankly in your OWN analogy - google is clearly a self-defense case.

Google had no interest in mountains of patents and this type of litigation until the competition started using it to attack them. That left them no choice but to retaliate or get pushed out of the market. Saying it's childish isn't really fair to Google--they're just playing by the rules that have been in place now for the last couple of decades. Let your government representatives know how you feel, but don't expect companies to stay above this kind of beha

Uh . . . you neglect to mention that if Google weren't infringing like their lives depended on it in the first place, no one would have been sued.

Yeah, and if Apple wasn't infringing like their lives depended on it they wouldn't be counter sued. Again, welcome to the patent system, where everyone infringes and only MAD keeps things somewhat sane. Until it doesn't.

We can blame all of the tech companies for not trying to extinguish software patents and reform patent law. None of the software companies think they are using patents offensively, all of them believe they are simply defending what they came up with. Neither Google, nor Microsoft, nor Apple are without blame.

This stupid false-equivalence is ridiculous. It is at best cynical to state that Apple's and Microsoft's thinks their offensive use of patents is a defensive use. Lemme ask you this. If someone came into your house and shot someone then claim they were just defending themself would you be so quick swallow their arguments? Just in case you weren't aware patents can be used offensively or defensively Can you cite one instance Just one where Google has used patents offensively? By the way offensive use of patents is the initiating of a patent action against some one. Defensive use of patents is suing someone after they have initiated and action against you first. Just in case you were unaware. There is a difference between stockpiling patents for defensive use and actually initiating patent actions against others. The difference is stark.

"sequence of events is "Apple builds a phone that revolutionizes the smart phone market, everybody including HTC tries to rip off Apple, Apple uses patents to defend against the ripping off, and Google gives HTC patents to countersue with the goal that they can continue to rip off Apple". That is offensive in every meaning of the word."

Nope. That's a defensive use from Google and offensive use from Apple. The fact that you _think_ that Apple "deserves" to be a monopolist has nothing to do with it.

It's funny how you left out the entire rest of the paragraph. Here it is in full:

Like I said, fair’s fair once you start shooting in a patent war, and Apple started the shooting in this one. But can Google spare us the crocodile tears going forward? They complained only when they had no relevant patents, and soon as they got some, they gave them to HTC to sue with them.

You've already basically admitted that someone can and has challenged Google, so it's easy to reiterate that no one is forcing anyone to use Google. Bing is actually a very good search engine and if someone detested Google so much that they refuse to search through it; there are completely viable alternatives.

Calling these patent infringements on either side "stealing" is flat out silly. Though if you want to call it that, then apple stole from google and HTC, google+HTC (order kinda varies here, too much research to figure out what ridiculous patent was filed and infringed upon first) stole from apple, apple started shooting first then google gave HTC a gun to start firing back. Right now in the mobile phone industry, EVERY possible conceivable invention, and several inconceivable ones are covered by multiple patents owned by multiple different companies. The only way to defend in the industry is to respond back, oh I'm infringing on 4 of your patents, oh yeah well your infringing on 4 of mine also, we both break even with just a few billion down the drain in lawyer fees, any company must either do that, or just say oh my bad I'll stop selling phones. Just flat out dropping out isn't an option, they are in it way to deep, so all that can be done is to assist the companies making their phones by preventing them from getting steamrolled.

Though if you want to call it that, then apple stole from google and HTC

Quite possibly.

apple started shooting first then google gave HTC a gun to start firing back

Only after Google stole from them. But that's not even what this thread is about. This thread is about Google's lie that they would never use a patent offensively. I'm really not bothered that Google is protecting their property. In fact, it's exactly the sort of thing they *should* do.
But I do care that they play a double-standard here and blatantly lie about it.

Interesting that you say Apple only POSSIBLY STOLE and yet Google STOLE... has anything gone through courts yet?

If Apple did steal, didn't they steal first?
Are you also concerned about the double standards that Apple is displaying? e.g.:
"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." -Steve Jobs
"Good artists copy; great artists steal." -Steve Jobs

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but you sure come across like you have an Apple bias.
Apple has some great products but also have s

I assume you are one of those apple consumers that has the religious parts of their brain activated when thinking about Apple.

Google is not trying to destroy apple, just trying to stop them destroying the smart phone/tablet market...which is their aim.

So in other words if you try to break my arm I am damned well going to break yours first if I can, or at least subdue you!!

You seem to believe that the fact Google is suing to defend its product justifies the suing, but that's exactly how Apple feels about suing to defend its product. In Apple's eyes, they have been ripped off by Android manufacturers cloning the iPhone and iPad [designer-daily.com] and have the right to sue them for it.

The point is that Slashdotters claim Google never sues over patents, but they most certainly do. So that argument can no longer be used.

Apple is trying to refight the UI design battle it lost over two decades ago. It didn't win that time and it won't win this time. In fact, now it has basically kicked up a hornet's nest by picking fights with people who can use actual legitimate technology patents to smack them, and Apple will regret ever having tried refight the UI war. It was moronic and shortsighted. They would have been better off just to simply work on market penetration, like the other mobile companies have been doing for fifteen years.

Um, no. Apple is just telling Android handset makers to come up with their own stuff.

That would be reasonable in a sane patent system. To make the obligatory car analogy, you and I both have dirty cars but own buckets, rags, water and soap. Both of us realize putting water and soap in the bucket, then using a rag to wash the car would get the car clean. You think of it a little bit before I do, or perhaps run off to the patent office first, and I now can't wash my car for the next 17 years, or have to pa

Are you _really_ suggesting apple should have the right to all things touch screen and square with rounded edges?

No, and no one else is suggesting this either.

And yet those are the patents that Apple is using to keep Samsung from selling tablets in Germany and Australia, and I believe the ones they're also throwing at HTC. The very system you are defending is the one you now deny.

Yes, and that's exactly how it's supposed to work, assuming no prior art.

No, it's not. Patents are supposed to be non obvious. Let's go a step farther. You invent a car that can go to the store, buy your groceries, and put them away. You patent it, and all is well with the world. *I* rush off and patent washing a grocery-buying car with a bucket, soap, water, and a rag--something th

Hey goon, It was nerds that created computing. The notion that you can't sit down in front of your computer and write code that is totally different form what Apple or Microsoft wrote but you get dragged into court because these gatekeepers want to claim ownership of your code that they didn't write is ridiculous. Screw them and all the goons who mindlessly support this 'all your code are belong to us' brigade. screw em.

The situations are different. Android is effectively a consortium of companies with Google as lead developer of the operating system and development tools. Apple owns the "i" line. Thus there positions are entirely different. In this case Google is lending an Android manufacturer a helping hand against a company with ludicrous patents but a chest full of money to keep competitors tied up in the courts for years. No matter how you look at it, Apple is the bad guy.

They're probably trying to coax a few details out of you. You can resolve it so easy by just telling us:

What are a few examples of the patented features that Apple is claiming they 'own' that you forthrightly would agree they 'own?' Give the folks here an idea what ground you stand on. It doesn't have to be a huge amount of detail. What does Apple have the right to that the other companies are 'stealing?'

The last time Apple tried this crap, in the touch-and-feel era when they sued Microsoft and Hewlett-

Having HTC have to settle the suit because neither HTC nor Google wants to lower themselves to Apple's level is hardly in the interest of anybody besides Apple and Apple's share holders.

It is perfectly relevant, it's a very different matter to use patents defensively than it is to use them for offensive purposes or rent keeping the way that Apple and MS do. Yes, it's less than ideal, but at the end of the day, we have patents and getting run out of the market for refusing to use them isn't going to help the

This is like the nerd version of reality television. Apple and Google are BFF until Jobs sees Schmidt making out with iPhone Joe. Then it's like OMGWTFBBQ and Google is no longer welcome in the house of fruit. Srsbzns means that hurt Jobs is going to stick daggers into Schmidts new BFFs, HTC, Samsung and Moto. Stuck and bleeding Moto threatens to turn on Samsung and HTC unless Schmidt makes Google tie the knot with Moto.Then the surprise of next week, Jobs makes a quick exit because he feels totally ill and

It's funny how slashdotters always point out how Google doesn't sue for patent issues, but conveniently don't mention how they're having these proxy wars via other companies. Just like all the other companies.

Excuse me, but you come across as an Apple apologist. Hands up, everybody who thinks Apple is the good guy here.

Nobody comes out of this looking like the "good guys". The net result of this fiasco will probably be a cross-licensing agreement and a bunch of rich lawyers. (I don't begrudge the lawyers anything, btw... everyone's gotta make a buck)

Please cite one instance of Google launching a patent infringement assertion against anyone without them or their partners being attacked first. Just one instance. If you cannot then your argument has absolutely no merit.

For over 10 years, Slashdot has been evangelizing Google for ideological reasons. It's going to take a while for its readership to change its beliefs. Hell, earlier today came a Google memo in the Oracle-Google case, where Google proclaimed not to "develop in the open" and to give privileged partners early access to source code.

More to the point, Apple has been using highly questionable design patents, not to mention some very questionable chicanery.to attempt to fool courts, but now finds itself against competitors in possession of real and meaningful patents on pertinent technologies.

Maybe Apple should spend less time trying to use the courts as its henchman.

Touch-screens weren't invented by Apple. Smartphones and tablets were not invented by Apple. In fact, I can't really think of anything Apple sells that ultimately wasn't someone else's invention first. They're good marketers, I'll give them that, but this idea that you can patent a round-edged rectangular tablet is beyond ludicrous. If Apple is so superior, surely their products can compete without abusive court cases.

There are a ton of Android handsets and makers, and Apple is not blanket suing all of them. They did go after the one who ripped off the iPhone design to such an extent that almost every review site commented on it. In that sense, they have a case - Samsung practically photocopied the iPhone. All the frothing by slashdot about "zomg rounded corners! they patented the rounded rectangle!" misses the point; it's not a single design element in isolation (there are plenty of products before and after the iPhone that feature rounded corners of a particular radius), but a whole slew of design elements that when combined together, form the iPhone. Arranging your icons in a grid: not unique. Arranging a very specifically coloured set of icons and graphics in a grid using rounded edges on a black background: iOS. Samsung's choice of icons was pretty blatant, especially when combined with the design of their phone.

Had Samsung had the same physical shape of the phone and gone with a different UI: no problem, or gone with a different phone shape with a similar UI to the one they used: still no problem. They didn't do that though - they made a phone that everyone looking at went "hey, looks nice, but exactly like the iPhone"

There are many, many more Android handsets that have not raised the ire of Apple's litigation department because *they don't look exactly like an iPhone*.

I'm as fed up as the next person with frivolous lawsuits and patents, like "once click shopping" or "arranging music in a list", "specific multi touch gestures", but in the case of Samsung copying the iPhone... it's pretty cut and dried.

Is it just the shape (and there were other devices that had a big glass front and buttons on the bottom of the screen).
Was it the placement of the icons? (a grid? really?

You seem to have replied to a post that you did not read, because you're asking questions that the post addresses.
Apple's problem with Samsung appears to be with the sum total of the Samsung products from hardware and software design changes made after the release of Apple products, packaging, marketing and advertising material copying the layout of Apple's advertising material. Now whether you agree that Apple has a case or that legal proceedings should be used to address these complaints is another matter. But Samsung's nods to Apple's design success were widely commented on in the press before Apple kicked off legal proceedings. So no, it's not just Apple and its "fanboys" who have perceived the similarity. Claiming that you can't see it seems disingenuous to me.